Posts Tagged ‘teens’

My God… how can people claim that this guy is some sort of irrational, Nazi, bastard? He may be the single most reasonable person I’ve ever seen. He had people there from different points of view. They all had the personal tragedy happen to loved ones, and they all had something to contribute. More importantly, everyone was respectful. Contrast that to the group of students that came off as attention whores, more interested in their own voices, casting insults, and basking in the glow of media love and their own self-importance. One meeting was about solutions. The other was about attention, about community organizing. Oh, I know what you are going to say. “How dare you! Do you know what those kids have been through?” Sorry, I made it through three of their speeches, and they came off as attention whores, not as those who lost beloved friends. There are women out there that poison and even kill their children to bask in the attention of other people’s sympathy. In this “look at me look at me look at me” generation, yeah, I totally think it was about attention.

Here are my thoughts on what was discussed:

People are talking about banning “assault rifles” or attaching an age restriction on it. I’m not totally against it. I would be willing to tie it to the voting age, but that is never going to fly…so let’s attach it to the drinking age. That way there is always going to be pressure to keep it low and prevent Democrats from raising the age to 65 or something. Just know this…it will accomplish NOTHING! If someone wants to shoot up a school, they are just going to use a different weapon.

I love the idea about identifying people with issues and HELPING THEM! That one chick was screaming about getting blamed for ostracizing the guy, “You didn’t know him! We did!” Well, crap, maybe part of the reason he was the way he was was because you mistreated him. Kick a dog enough, and he will bite you. When a human bites back, we somehow forget about those who did the kicking. Bear in mind, the Columbine shooters were bullied as well. That doesn’t excuse what they did in retaliation, but when someone is talking about taking away my rights due to the actions of another that was driven by being mistreated, I have to wonder if the best course of action isn’t to have people be nicer to one another.

I am also not against having armed guards or having select teachers have access to a gun. It is a bizarre argument to me that you are going to say “people may lose their temper,” or anything else. You know how many CCWs are out there? You know how many snap and kill someone? It doesn’t happen. If we do go this route, the teachers in question should be CCW permit holders, should have to be able to shoot with a greater degree of proficiency, and must do four training sessions a year and re-qualify every year and have a psych evaluation. All of this would be volunteered, and I am sure that psychiatrists would also be willing to volunteer their services on this point.

It is true that this kid did not break the law, but there must come a certain point where someones words and actions and the frequency of contact with law enforcement attaches. At that point, law enforcement may seize that person’s weapons and place a hold on their ability to buy additional guns. This is not the end of the story, however. That individual MUST have the right to challenge this in court wherein they will be subject to a psychiatric evaluation. If cleared, their weapons must be returned to them.

We should harden soft targets. This could involve metal detectors in some schools, where appropriate. As one person pointed out, why was the gate open to the school prior to school being let out?

Why must ANYTHING be done at the national level anyway? I don’t understand the obsession (well, I do, actually) that the Federal government must do something. The states can do anything they please. The laws that are in one state may or may not be appropriate for another state. Why can’t we just let the states handle this problem in the best way they see how? That way, if people in Wyoming want to buy AR-15s, and the people in Maryland don’t want to be able to buy AR-15s, there’s no trouble whatsoever.

The real reason that they push for Federal gun laws is that they want to ban all guns. Let’s be honest. If you made it so Cruz could get a AR-15, he would have gone in with a shotgun and a couple of pistols. The Virginia Tech shooter had pistols and killed 33 people. Do you really think that if this had happened, the Left would have said, “Well, there’s nothing we can do. People have the right to get shotguns and pistols.” No! They would go after that as well. They would say “Well, why do you need a pump action shotgun that can shoot 3 shells? A break action with 2 shells is plenty for duck hunting. And there is no reason for someone to have an automatic pistol when a 5 shot revolver will do!” Let’s be honest. This isn’t about stopping school shooters. This is about stopping private gun ownership.

Now, if you want to be honest and say, “For the safety of the children, we must confiscate the hundreds of millions of guns that in the hands of peaceful citizens. Doing so will be guaranteed to trigger a civil war. Even if a civil war does not break out, at least a million Americans will die over their right to keep in bear arms. So tell me what the justification of a million American deaths would be, because that would be the price of the gun ban. And the sad thing is, that the hardcore Left would be cool with it, because they are ends justify the means types. The sad thing is, if we ever get to that point, there is no turning back. Once the government decides they can use armed forced to shove unpopular laws down your throat and you no longer have guns of your own, welcome to an authoritarian hell.